DHARMAIAH HEGDE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY IITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT, VIKASA SOUDHA VIDHANAVEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (HOSANAGARA), PRESENTLY IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BALARAJ URS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioners are before this Court for the third time. The petitioners are the legal representatives of one Devamma who is resident of Yadur village, Hosanagara taluk, Shimoga district. She was holding garden, wet and dry land in land bearing sy. no. 81 of the said village measuring about 5 acres 11 guntas. She died in the year 2001. During her life time, house property including the land was acquired for the purposes of Varahi Hydro Electric Project. The acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1980 and a final declaration was issued in the year 1981 and the entire land was acquired. It is the case of the petitioners that the acquisition was not only in respect of a land and cow shed but also residential premises of Devamma. It is also on record that the respondents had conducted a survey of the land and structures before proceeding with the acquisition proceedings and determination of the compensation and an award accordingly had been passed awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,639/ - for dry land Rs. 14,950/ - for wet land, Rs. 1,21,454/ - for garden land and Rs. 3,958/ - for structure shown as kottige mane, in all, a sum of Rs. 1,44,001/ - in favour of Devamma, who was however alive at that point of time. The amount of compensation was not deposited by the authority which led to Devamma filing an Execution Petition before the competent Court, Civil Judge, Sagar. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, Devamma died and the compensation amount was in turn deposited by the respondents. The petitioners had impleaded themselves in those proceedings and had prayed for release of the deposited award amount in their favour. However, the Execution Court rejected their claim for the compensation amount which required them to challenge the same before this Court by way of a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 20285/2003. After hearing the parties, this Court directed the Execution Court to release the amount in their favour without insisting for succession certificate. Thereafter, petitioners realized that no compensation was paid in respect of the house premises and the compensation therefore was only in respect of Kottigemane or cow shed and it is on such realisation that the petitioners had approached this Court earlier. This Court having directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners, the respondents having considered the same, the petitioners were not satisfied and it led to the petitioners filing Writ Petition in W.P.NO. 12863/2006 which again was disposed of by a further direction that the same be reconsidered and it is for the second time that the said finding have been arrived at by the respondents at Annexure -A. The respondents reiterate that even at the time of compensation being determined, the structures that were present on the land had been duly surveyed and valued and it is on that basis that the compensation was paid and the claim of the petitioners that there was a residential premises which had been lumped together with the cowshed and fair compensation has not been paid in respect of the said premises is the bone of contention.

(2.) FROM a reading of the Annexure -A, it is seen the respondents have closely considered the case of the petitioners and have arrived at findings of fact in rejecting the claim of the petitioners which cannot be lightly interfered by this Court. Accordingly, the petitions stand dismissed.